Participants
Names and wards follow the minutes; where the dialogue file's label differs, the difference is noted. Citizens are listed in speaking order.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Heather Whitney | Chair | Presides; moves to house the program at the technical center (1:06:05); raises the preschool and CCTV as other non-compliant tenants (1:09:34); reports that she asked board attorney Matt Upton for a legal opinion that was not ready (1:43:13); gives Skillen's request to the administration as a directive rather than a motion (1:59:33); votes yes (minutes). |
| Frank Sprague | Vice chair | Supplies the history of the Ombudsman and OWLS programs (0:05:05); describes the target students as "really school phobic kids" (0:35:50); moves the amendment setting a January 31, 2024 re-evaluation (1:07:02); says the building has been out of compliance "since the building opened" (1:16:37); asks whether Miles has a conflict as a realtor (1:59:43); votes no (minutes). |
| Bonnie Miles | Member | Moves to extend citizens' comments to five minutes (minutes; the dialogue file leaves the mover Unidentified at 0:01:59); asks about class size and student profile (0:39:24); reads RSA 188-E:3 aloud as her reason for opposing (1:14:36); says she would take no payment and only recommend names if asked to help find a site (1:59:49); votes no (minutes). |
| Whitney Skillen | Member | Asks how many out-of-district students would return (0:43:04) and whether Stevens could host the program with a year's lead time (0:43:17); wants confirmation whether the preschool or CCTV put renovation funding at risk (1:10:42); asks Nester to confirm state funding would not be held up (1:15:51); proposes an amendment to fund a search for another site, taken as a directive instead (1:59:02); seconds the January amendment (minutes); votes yes (minutes). Rendered Skilling in the roll. |
| Jennifer Gallagher | Member | Seconds the main motion (1:06:33); argues it is "reasonable to house it here temporarily and then explore alternative options" (1:12:52); votes yes (minutes). |
| Arlene Hawkins | Member | Seconds the comment-time extension (0:02:06); asks what supports the students would have (0:46:55) and how parents will be told (0:48:39); asks to widen the review to all non-compliant programs (1:12:20); asks that the directive include the budget, legal advice and an alternate location (2:00:24); votes yes (minutes). |
| Candace Crawford | Member | Presses on whether the program is dropout prevention, special education or out-of-district return (0:29:11); doubts that an online course suits the students described (0:34:45); asks whether disruptive behavior would move into the technical center (0:57:48); votes no (minutes). |
| Ben Nester | Director of Special Education, SAU 6 | Calls the roll; presents the proposal (slides titled "The Academy"); recounts a call that day with a state CTE official rendered Jeff Beard in the transcript (0:08:26); recommends a one-year stay at the technical center (0:27:15); answers questions throughout. |
| Mike Koski | Assistant Superintendent | Reports commercial space at "about $2,000 a month for about 1500ft²" before conversion (0:27:59); answers Merchant on timing (1:49:47); advises that a directive suffices for Skillen's request (1:59:37). Rendered Mr. Kosky. |
| Lee Malloy | Special educator, proposed lead teacher | Describes her prior programs and the work-readiness model (0:15:48); answers citizens' questions near the end (1:52:03). Miles renders her name Lily Malloy (0:39:33). |
| Alex Herzog | Director, Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center | "Dr. Alex Herzog" in the minutes. Says he found no definitive research for keeping the program away from the high school, calls compliance with the statute an ethics question, and says he heard of the proposal "accidentally" (1:17:10 to 1:21:33). |
| John Lambert | Substitute teacher at the technical center (minutes); lives in Charlestown (self-identified) | Asks how students are identified and whether the charter school would serve them better (1:22:01). |
| Mimi Rhines | Citizens' comments, Ward 1; Stevens High School counselor | Says the earlier attempt to bring the program back into the high school "went terribly" and favors a one-year trial at the center (1:26:50). Rendered Mimi Ryan's. |
| David Putnam | Citizens' comments, Ward 2 | Describes the charter school's capacity, urges making the high school work, and asks how progress will be reported (1:28:24); speaks again on the cost of repeated moves (1:50:57). |
| Deb Lafrienere | Citizens' comments, Ward 3; former Stevens teacher | Asks about the earlier program's location, the diploma, and how out-of-district students would fit (1:31:41). The dialogue file labels her Deb; the surname is from the minutes. |
| Derek Ferland | Citizens' comments, Ward 3; Tech Center Visioning Committee | Asks whether students join existing CTE classes and about cohort sizes; supports a trial tied to CTE but would be "very reticent" if renovation funding were at risk (1:37:35 to 1:42:03). Labeled Derek; surname from the minutes. |
| Andy Lafrienere | Citizens' comments, Ward 3; Tech Center Visioning Committee | Praises the effort but warns of encroachment on CTE and funding problems (1:44:16). Labeled Andy; surname from the minutes. The 2/8/23 minutes spell a Ward 3 speaker "Andy Lafreniere"; this page follows this meeting's minutes. |
| Gary Merchant | Citizens' comments, Ward 2; NH State Representative (Claremont and Croydon) | Asks "why do we have to do it now?", urges a legal review and money for a site search (1:46:53 to 1:49:32). |
| Scott Pope | Citizens' comments, Ward 2; retired technical-center teacher | Recalls the earlier program, says the item first surfaced late in the August 2 meeting, and points to the Seacoast technical center's on-site charter school as a model (1:55:08). |
| Unidentified audience member | Audience, connected with the Visioning Committee | Asks before the presentation whether committee members may speak longer than three minutes (0:01:36). |
Agenda
Items and wording from the posted agenda (created on Drive Friday, August 4, 2023); dispositions from the recording and the minutes.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:09 | I. Call to order, pledge | Called to order by the chair, pledge follows (0:00:21). Minutes: 6:30 p.m. |
| 0:00:38 | II. General business: roll call; consent agenda (agenda approval); citizens' comments | Roll read by Nester; all seven present (minutes). The chair says "We have no consent agenda to acknowledge tonight" and moves citizens' comments to after the presentation and board discussion (0:01:03); no vote on the agenda is recorded. At an audience request, a motion to allow five minutes per speaker instead of three carries by voice vote (0:02:07); the minutes name Bonnie Miles as mover and Arlene Hawkins as seconder. |
| 0:02:20 | III.1 Alternative Programming: presentation by Ben Nester, Director of Special Education | Presentation (0:04:07 to 0:28:29), board questions (0:28:36 to 1:06:04). Motion by Whitney, second by Gallagher (1:06:05); Sprague's amendment to re-evaluate by January 31, 2024, seconded by Skillen per the minutes, carries by voice vote (1:07:20). Debate, then citizens' comments (1:17:10 to 1:57:51). Question called and taken by show of hands (1:58:27); the chair announces "3 to 4 ayes have it. Motion passes." (2:00:14). Minutes: yes Whitney, Gallagher, Hawkins, Skillen; no Miles, Sprague, Crawford; 4 to 3. Skillen's request to fund a search for another site is given to the administration as a directive, without a vote (1:59:33). |
| 2:00:53 | IV. Adjournment | Adjourned without objection (2:00:57); agenda time 7:30 p.m. |
Discussion timeline
Times are taken from the dialogue transcript (Dialogue/15240 SchoolBoard080923.mp4.CSV) and link into the recording.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:01:03 | Order of business | The chair: "what I'd like to do is have our discussion, our presentation. Once the board has the discussion before we vote on the topic. I'll open the floor to citizens comments." An audience member asks for more than three minutes for Visioning Committee members (0:01:36); five minutes per person is approved (0:02:07). | POSITIVE |
| 0:04:31 | History: Ombudsman, OWLS, closure | Sprague: "Senate bill. 18 came in which raised the, the dropout aged 18" and the state offered grant funding (0:05:05). Nester: the online Ombudsman program became the locally funded OWLS program; from 2015-16 it was expanded to "students that had disruptive and aggressive behaviors" and placed at the technical center (0:06:15); "It went very poorly. As you might imagine. There was some damage to the tech center." (0:06:44); all alternative programming ended in 2018-19 (0:07:19). | |
| 0:08:26 | The state's position on non-CTE use | Nester reports his call that day with a state CTE official: "when and if the district decides to renovate the tech center, if there is a non CTE program here, then the district will not fund the renovation" (0:08:47), then corrects himself to the state (0:09:15); "A 75, 25% split. So the district would need to come up with 25% of the funds, the state roughly 75%" (0:09:23); Perkins money is not lost, but a non-CTE program at renovation time "would be a nonstarter for the state in terms of funding" (0:09:46). | MEDIUM |
| 0:11:19 | Staffing and funding | One lead teacher and one or two paraprofessionals. The teacher position "It's a reallocation from an elementary level position. So it is funded for fiscal year 24"; the paraprofessionals from "SR three monies" [ESSER III] (0:11:39). The slides say the same: "1 or 2 fte paraprofessional positions funded with ESSER 3" (presentation). | |
| 0:15:48 | Lee Malloy on the program model | Youth-driven personal learning plans, work readiness, extended learning opportunities, online core courses (Imagine Odysseyware per the slides), AM and PM cohorts of six to eight students in year one (slides). | |
| 0:24:14 | Target population | Nester: "struggling learners at risk of dropping out. There's a pattern, of course, failures" (0:24:42); students "devoid of things like aggression or property destruction" (0:25:08). The slides add "No major aggressive behaviors directed at staff or students on record in the last 5 years" (presentation). | |
| 0:25:56 | Three locations | High school, technical center, or an off-campus lease. At the high school "we would likely be looking at a delayed start" (0:26:52); Nester recommends the technical center "on a one year basis" (0:27:15). Koski: commercial space at "about $2,000 a month for about 1500ft²" before any conversion (0:27:59). | |
| 0:29:11 | Crawford: what kind of program? | "It is for its to keep students in school, and to make sure they graduate. It's not it's not for special ed needs in particular" (0:30:35). Nester: "the focus is on dropout prevention" (0:31:21). Sprague: the students are "really school phobic kids, which is. And they're not a disruption. They're just invisible." (0:35:50). | |
| 0:43:04 | Skillen: the high school as a site | "Potentially two" out-of-district students would return (0:43:15). On a year's lead time at Stevens: "It it's possible right now to to find a room in Stevens High School and run the program" (0:43:52), but "Chris Pratt, who's got years of experience, would say that's a hard no" (0:44:46). Nester would look at a lease and work "with a real estate agent. Bonnie, maybe." (0:46:10). | |
| 0:46:55 | Supports, parents, approval, cost | No added support staff on site; the district-wide counselor and two social workers would serve them (0:47:22). Not a special education program, so no state program approval is sought (0:54:15). Returning two out-of-district students: "anywhere from 150 to $200,000" (0:55:06), plus "20 to $50,000" a year in private transport where needed (0:55:29). | |
| 1:06:05 | Motion and amendment | Whitney moves "to approve the further development and implementation of the Stephen High School Alternative program, to be temporarily housed at the Sugar Valley Technical Sugar River Valley Technical Center, to be reevaluated at the end of 2324 school year" (1:06:05); Gallagher seconds (1:06:33). Sprague moves to re-evaluate by "January 31st" (1:07:16); carried by voice vote (1:07:20). | |
| 1:09:34 | Other non-compliant tenants: the preschool and CCTV | Whitney: "we have a preschool program here which is currently not compliant. Not that I, I love CCTV, but we now we house CCTV here." Skillen wants to know whether "the preschool program or the CCTV program" puts renovation funding at risk (1:10:42). Sprague doubts Newport's renovation was affected by a community-TV tenant (1:11:17). Hawkins's request to widen the motion to all non-compliant programs is left for a future agenda (1:12:20). | MEDIUM |
| 1:12:52 | Debate for and against | Gallagher: "since we don't have another option as of yet, it makes sense to utilize space in this building that's not currently being used." Miles reads RSA 188-E:3: the facility is "for use by Career and Technical Education Center exclusively" (1:14:36); "it's the exclusively word that really scares me" (1:15:04). | MEDIUM |
| 1:16:24 | "Out of compliance" | Nester: "we've been out of compliance in this building for the last six years." Sprague: "We've been out of compliance since the building opened." (1:16:37). Nester relays that a non-CTE program "it'll be a finding of noncompliance. But there's no sanctions listed in the in the statute" (1:16:40). | MEDIUM |
| 1:17:10 | Herzog (technical-center director) | "I couldn't find any definitive research that said it needs to be away from the high school" (1:18:51); "RSA is the RSA" (1:19:53); "How can we go against what the rules are" (1:20:14); "I was a little shocked that it came up so quickly. And all of a sudden I heard about it accidentally" (1:21:10). | OBSERVATION |
| 1:22:01 | Citizens' comments | Lambert (1:22:01); Rhines: at the high school "it went terribly" (1:27:14); Putnam: "the high school would be the most economical way to do it for the community" (1:30:06); Lafrienere (1:31:41); Ferland: dropout "around 25 to 30%" in his child's 2021 class (1:39:00) and "I would be very reticent to support this if it jeopardized any of the renovation funding" (1:42:03). | POSITIVE |
| 1:43:13 | Legal opinion not ready | The chair: "I did reach out to Matt Upton, the district attorney, and asked him to give us an official legal opinion on what the impact of having non-compliant, programs are in this building. He was unable to expedite it". She and others "felt that it was in the best interest of the district to continue to have this discussion tonight knowing that that was coming" (1:43:40). | MEDIUM |
| 1:44:16 | Visioning Committee and Merchant | Andy Lafrienere warns about "potential for encroachment on CTE" (1:44:39). Merchant: "why do we have to do it now?" (1:46:54); "Be sure you get a legal review. You put money aside for administration to explore things" (1:49:32). Koski: "because we haven't done it for 2 or 3 years. We need to do it now" (1:49:47). | |
| 1:55:08 | Pope, and the item's short lead time | Pope: the proposal "came out like two hours into the meeting" on August 2 (1:55:08) and "a week ago at 830 in the in the evening" (1:55:57); he cites the Seacoast technical center's on-site charter school (1:56:25). | OBSERVATION |
| 1:58:27 | Vote and directive | Skillen proposes an amendment that the administration begin exploring another location "and that we make funds available for that from the budget" (1:59:02). The chair: "Do we need a motion or can we give you a directive in public on CCTV?" Koski: "I think a directive side." (1:59:37). Sprague asks if Miles has a conflict as a realtor (1:59:43). Vote by raised hands (2:00:05): "3 to 4 ayes have it. Motion passes." (2:00:14). | OBSERVATION |
Items flagged for review
These flags are a reviewer's aid, not findings of violation and not legal advice. Each one cites the rule it rests on as that rule read on August 9, 2023; check the recording and the primary source before relying on any of them. Severity: HIGH, a likely breach of a binding rule or a missed statutory deadline; MEDIUM, a probable process gap or control weakness; OBSERVATION, notable with no confirmed rule; POSITIVE, practice beyond the legal minimum. This page carries no HIGH flag.
MEDIUM The board placed a non-CTE program in the technical center while its officials described that use as out of compliance and before the legal opinion the chair had requested arrived
RSA 188-E:3, II, as codified in 2023, provides that a regional CTE facility built or renovated with state grants "shall become the property of the school district or public academy, for use by the career and technical education center exclusively" (statute). Miles read that sentence aloud (1:14:36). Nester relayed a state CTE official's view that a non-CTE program would be "a finding of noncompliance" with no listed sanction (1:16:40) and that it would block state funding of a future renovation, a roughly 75 percent share by his account (0:09:23); Nester and Sprague both said the building was already out of compliance (1:16:24, 1:16:37). The chair told the meeting she had asked board counsel for "an official legal opinion" and that it could not be expedited (1:43:13); the board voted 4 to 3 the same night (minutes). Mitigation on the record: the stay is limited to one year with a re-evaluation by January 31, 2024 (1:07:20); the program uses rooms Koski described as empty (1:49:47). Whether the SRVRTC building was built or renovated under this section is not documented in this meeting's record, though every speaker treated it as covered. The chair also named the district preschool and CCTV as existing non-CTE tenants (1:09:34), and Hawkins's request to review them was left for a future agenda. The flag is MEDIUM rather than HIGH because the statute states a use restriction with no sanction, the state's view reaches the page only second-hand, and counsel's opinion was still pending.
Sources: RSA 188-E:3, II (2023 codification; source note ends 2021, 210:2, eff. Oct. 9, 2021); minutes, item III.1
MEDIUM The minutes reached the public share on the eighth business day, and were not in the next meeting's packet
RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes to be "promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting" (statute). For a Wednesday, August 9 meeting the fifth business day was Wednesday, August 16. Both copies of these minutes, the draft in the meeting's own packet folder and the numbered copy in the minutes share, were created on Drive Monday, August 21, 2023, the eighth business day; the draft's modified time is the same morning, so nothing in the Drive record shows the text existed earlier. The August 16 packet carries the August 2 minutes but not these. Drive posting is evidence of when the public could read the minutes online, not proof that no copy was available at the SAU office, which is why this is MEDIUM rather than HIGH (html_briefing section 5: the meeting was noticed and packeted, and only timely minutes are in question). The minutes do name movers and seconders as the same paragraph requires (flag 6).
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2022 codification, in force until Oct. 3, 2023); draft minutes (Drive created August 21, 2023)
OBSERVATION A request to "make funds available" for a site search went to the administration as a directive, without a vote, and the minutes record it only as a future agenda item
Skillen framed her request as an amendment that the administration explore another location "and that we make funds available for that from the budget based on the administration's recommendation" (1:59:02). On the chair's question whether a motion was needed, Koski answered "I think a directive side." (1:59:37), and Hawkins asked that it include "the budget, the legal advice and alternate location" (2:00:24). No vote was taken on it, and the minutes say only "Future agenda item to add the search for a new location for the program to be housed as well as legal counsel input" (minutes). Any spending would still need a later board action; a reader looking for the board's authorization of site-search money will not find one in this meeting. No rule is cited because no expenditure was approved.
Sources: minutes, item III.1
OBSERVATION The technical-center director and a retired CTE teacher said the proposal reached them late and by accident
Herzog said he "heard about it accidentally" and had been told it was preliminary while "two other sources" called it "a done deal from the beginning" (1:21:10, 1:21:33). Pope said it first came out "two hours into the meeting" on August 2 (1:55:08). The slides were filed in the packet folder on Monday, August 7, two days before the vote (Drive created time). The agenda reached the Drive packet folder on August 4, well ahead of the 24 hours of notice RSA 91-A:2, II requires, so the item was publicly listed in time; the point is consultation with the SRVRTC director and the Visioning Committee, for which no rule is cited.
Sources: The Academy- Presentation (Drive created August 7, 2023); RSA 91-A:2, II (notice)
POSITIVE Comment time was extended by vote and the public was heard before the board voted
RSA 189:74 requires a comment period of no less than 30 minutes and allows time limits "provided such time limits are equal for all speakers" (statute). At an audience request the board voted five minutes per speaker instead of three (0:02:07), and the chair held the vote until comment ended. Comment ran from Herzog at 1:17:10 to the call of the question at 1:58:27, about 41 minutes, with ten people heard, Putnam twice, and board and staff answering questions in between.
Sources: RSA 189:74 (2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022)
POSITIVE The minutes name every mover and seconder and record each member's vote on the split decision
RSA 91-A:2, II requires "The names of the members who made or seconded each motion" (statute). The minutes name them for the comment extension, the main motion and the amendment, and list the yes and no voters on the 4 to 3 hand vote, which the recording does not capture by name: on tape the chair announces only "3 to 4 ayes have it" (2:00:14). Naming the voters on a show-of-hands vote goes beyond what the statute requires.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II; minutes
Appendix: source files
Official and public sources
Project files
Working files this page was built from. The dialogue file is linked; the others are not published with the page.
Dialogue/15240 SchoolBoard080923.mp4.CSV (699 attributed rows; the basis of this page)Input/Videos/15240 SchoolBoard080923.mp4 (local copy of the recording)Input/Transcripts/15240 SchoolBoard080923.mp4.json (diarized transcript)Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md, section 201 (video-to-document map)
Laws and rules cited on this page